James Ainsworth

Hi @Martyn Houghton I just wanted to update this post to say that a full Request List is now available on the Contact record. I hope this helps. Regards, James

HI @Keith We are just about to start a change that will let you set which actions are available when a request is on hold. There is another forum thread which I'll see if I can find the link to.. James

No worries. I was often called Jamie in my younger years...

Hi @aw2215 I need to have a closer look at the abilities with the mapping. I had thought that you could map to h_impact and h_urgency which are two available fields on a request. After doing a test, I'm now not sure if this is the case. I'll let you know if I find a way to do this. If I can't we can see what options we can add to make this possible. Regards, James

Hi @aw2215 Thanks for your post. In your BPM workflow you should be able to use the decision nodes to determine a priority to be set. If you have the capturing of the impact and urgency in the Progressive Capture mapped to store this in the Impact and Urgency fields, in your BPM workflow you would start with using the ''Get Request Details' operation to make the information about the impact and urgency available to the workflow. You can then create your decision nodes with Custom Expressions where you can build the criteria for setting each priority level. Decision nodes can only have 3 exit points, so you may find that you have to have a number of nested decision nodes to cover all of the scenarios. There is a lot of flexibility on how you define your exit points. You may prefer to have an initial exit on just the impact where you just check the impact level as the first decision, and then after that each branch would then check the urgency. Or you can you can check a combination of Impact and Urgency using the AND option as I have done in the screenshot. Let me know if that is what you are looking for and if it helps. Regards, James

I'm looking at some of the requirements around providing the ability to order the Services in the portals. The suggestions here point toward manually setting the order of the services in a similar fashion to that of the Request Catalog Items which can be dragged into your selected order. There are a few challenges with manually ordering Service. The way the Service Portfolio has been designed, not all services will always be visible to all users. Any service that is not visible to the user doing the ordering may be excluded from the ordering. For some customers that have hundreds of Services, manual ordering may also be too granular and time consuming. We also need to keep in mind that not all services are visible on the portals and wouldn't need to be included in the ordering. We could consider a new role for a Service Portfolio Manager who would be given the rights to see all Services, but we would have to be very careful with this as some services such as HR may contain sensitive data. This user may not be able to see any more than the names of the services,but they could influence the order, either manually or by setting an automatic based ordering. Another consideration is to provide some preset order options to the customers on the portals. It may be the case that customers would prefer to set their own ordering as the most important service as seen by a customer could be different from one customer to the next. We could also look at giving this control to the user that sets up the portals in Administration. We could provide some default ordering options such as Most Subscribed or Most Active. This would not provide the granular level that manually setting the order of each Service, but it would make sure that all Services are included as part of the ordering. The downfall of this is that the order of the services may change each time a customer visits the portal, which could be confusing. I would be interested to hear more feedback on your requirements for this feature. Regards, James

Information on the configuration of the Service Manager Notifications can be found here.

Hi @Martyn Houghton I was wondering if you have had a chance to use the BPM operations for Requests posting back to workspaces? Documentation can be found here. This works especially well when a request has been raised from a post using the Action menu on the post. Your BPM workflow can comment back to the post at multiple times throughout your workflow and you can configure your workflow to provide links back to the post within your request timeline. A manual paste of a request into a comment will not provide that two way link, however using the BPM operations might help with maintaining your links between post and request and would keep your posts up to date as the request progresses. Regards, James

Hi @Martyn Houghton I came across this post from last year and I just wanted to update to say that Service Manager now provides a request list on both a Contact form and a User Profile. This is a fully functioning request list that is filtered down to the associated contact or user. There is also an option to raise requests from this list which will automatically associated the contact or user that you are currently viewing. I hope this helps. Regards, James

Hi @chrisnutt At the moment this is only an idea, but what I would look for is to have the same criteria that is offered when creating a view. You just wouldn't have to give it a name, or save it, and the charts wouldn't be available.

Hi @Giuseppe Iannacone Thanks for the update and I'm sure that this will help others. Regards, James

Hi Sam, I'll chase up to see if there are any plans to add this. I can confirm that it is not currently possible. Regards, James

Hi @chrisnutt I would agree that the use of the advanced syntax is not great for quickly locating something. We do have changes in our backlog and other ideas on improving the searching, however these are still not in the queue for development. Until we see some of these I'll continue to see where I can help using the existing features of Service Manager and Hornbill. The Views contain all of the criteria that you mention around when it was raised, the status now being closed, and the type of record being a Problem record. Views in essence are a saved search. Views have a very comprehensive list of criteria that you can selected to locate requests with. In order to provide these same options in the Global Search, we will be replicating what we already have, and the selection process of the different criteria would be fairly similar. Using the request list also provides the sorting options of the results. Is the saving of a View the concern? If there was a button on the request list to open the list of criteria that you can select and search on, but not save, would this provide the result that you are looking for? Regards, James

Hi @Darren Rose While we are looking at this, there does seem to be a workaround. When you first open the Stage Event dialog box for adding a new event, change Scope from Entity to Application and then back to Entity. You may find now that when you select the Type Email Notification along a Flowcode, the Apply Event Setting is now available. There seems to be something in the initial loading of the form that is not validating that all of the mandatory fields have been filled. Hopefully this will allow you to continue with your set up until we have a fix. Regards, James

Hi @clampj I don't believe that the nesting of your organisation structure has any specific purpose from a technical or automation perspective at the moment. My past recommendation for building your structure from the start is more to support any future functionality that takes advantage of this hierarchy. You may notice that the ability to select a "Parent'' can only be done on creation of a team, department, cost center, or any other group. So, the creation of an organisation hierarchy from the start will make managing this in the future, much easier. Regards, James

Hi @EvanD Thanks for your post. I would have some concern over our security model with this type of change. It would suggest that people with this new role would not only be able to assign roles that they don't have to others, but also assign these roles to themselves. This ability to elevate ones own rights within Hornbill I think is where others might be concerned. I hope I've understood your post correctly. Hopefully others will contribute to this and we can see if there is concern or not. Regards, James

Hi @mojahidm Unfortunately "org" is not a title that is currently available in the Global Search so it can't be used in the format of org:hornbill. We have a change in the backlog for adding a date option to the Global Search Tools for requests. This is not scheduled yet, but I'll add you as an interested connection so we can keep you up to date with the progress. We have started updating lists of requests on different entities. For example there is a new list that you can view against a Contact or a User that looks just like the main request list, but already filtered down to things related to them. We will be adding this to the Organisation level, and possibly replace the current list against the Service Record with the full request list. This will hopefully provide more flexibility and different ways that related request can be viewed. We can also look to see how we can improve the Global Search to include organisations as part of the search. Until these are available, I'm trying to think of alternatives that could help you now. On the request list this would give you most of what you need, minus the date. Select "All My Services" Type the organisation name in the filter Select the status that you would like to view Order by service to group the same service together. Regards, James

Hi @clampj Thanks for your post. I can't recall the entire context of my earlier post, but at the time I may have assumed that for subscriptions there was some ability to inherit membership from other groups. My recommendations on building your organisation structure early on was also to ease any restructuring of the org structure later on, which might be used by future apps. We do have a change in the backlog to look at the inheritance of group membership for subscriptions on which I have added you to as an interested connection. I'll discuss with our dev teams how this might be achieved. This change is not currently scheduled, but I will update this post as the change progresses. Regards, James

Hi @mojahidm From the request list you can type in the organisation name to filter the list down. You can sort by organisation by clicking on the column title. You can also go to an Organisation record and view a list of requests against that organisation. Regards, James

Hi @Paul Alexander Sorry for not responding earlier. I just wanted to let you know that we have finished some work that will allow you to set the source from a BPM workflow. This has been added to the Update Request operation. You will be able to manually add your own source name or you can use the variable picker to add a source name from a stored variable. This should become available in an update over the coming weeks. Keep an eye open on the release notes. Regards, James

Hi @SJEaton I just wanted to check if this is now working for you since the latest update from the Collaboration Core or if this issue is still occurring. Regards, James

Hi @SJEaton I don't believe that there currently is a way of doing this. I will see if I can have someone come back with some more information and if there are any plans to add this. James

Hi @m.vandun I just wanted to check if this is still an issue for you. Regards, James